Labour flip flopping again

There has been only one confirmed road death in which the driver at fault had drunk enough alcohol to put them between the new and old drink-driving limits.

Labour transport spokeswoman Sue Moroney said the single death showed that lower-end drink-driving was not a high-risk area, and that a rise in the national road toll showed the Government’s road safety measures were not working.

As it happens I agree that drivers with between 50 and 80 blood alcohol are not a high risk. I’ve blogged many times that very few accidents occur with drivers at this level.

But the hypocrisy from Labour is laughable. They were the party demanding the limit drop from 80 to 50 and attacking the Government for not doing it more quickly. They even had a members bill in 2013 to do this. As far as I can tell they have been demanding this since at least 2010. Here’s what Labour said in 2010:

“Professor Nutt believes we could reduce our road toll by two-thirds if we reduced the limit because it would alter patterns of driving.

So Labour have been the cheerleaders for reducing the limit, and now they’re saying that it isn’t a high-risk area.

Related Stories

Comments (26)

Old.Mickey.Blue.Eyes

Who is running the Labour Party ? What a cluster-fuck, and no surprise to see Sue Maroney involved in latest fuck up. Wouldnt it be nice to see Rebecca Wright ask angry little about this in the same way she attacked John Palino yesterday…..

Nigel

Not to sure how the media wizard Palino got dragged into this, is any publicity is better publicity than his organised publicity perhaps ( sorry coming from behind a curtain was pretty horrendous stuff & that’s not even getting into not having talking points ready for the obvious questions ).
Back to the subject @ hand, Labour is an inconsistent mess. But that is not actually good for NZ, to get the best out of any governing party you want a decent opposition. At the moment it’s flipflop central. For all the enjoyment of watching them self implode, it’s not a good thing.

waripori

National held the line on this waiting for evidence that drivers between 50 and 80 were a problem and then caved without any hard facts. This bit of cowardice has caused the demise of certainly dozens but probably hundreds of country pubs. They should put the limit back where it was and get on with catching drunk drivers.

labrator

There’s no new evidence there, just some new results which matches the data beforehand. As DPF says, in the post, he was critical because of the lack of accidents in that range. So again, what new evidence? Labour ignored the actual evidence before and now the evidence is till the same, they’ve flip-flopped to criticise the Government the other way. Something about eating cake.

davidp

Step 2: Campaigners focus on the minor issue and portray it as the end of the world.

Step 3: The media jump on board, because this sort of thing sells advertising.

Step 4: The opposition jump on board, because they don’t really have any ideas of their own and this might win votes.

Step 5: After months worth of pressure from campaigners, the media, the opposition, and special interests who have figured out that they can make money out of the issue… the government caves and passes a law.

Step 6: Campaigners move on to their next target. No one ever looks at the effectiveness of the new law. The government never repeals the law since there will be a feeding frenzy if even one negative thing happens after repeal.

So this is different. The opposition have replaced step 6 with an admission that they got it all wrong. Maybe the government can repeal the law, with the support of the opposition?

marquess

labrator

marquess: “Judge, I’d like to present some new evidence which I believe will blow this case wide open”
judge: “Go ahead”
marquess: *presents evidence exactly the same as that already in front of the court*
judge: “I thought you said you had new evidence for us?”
marquess: “Yes, can’t you see? The date changed, it’s *new* and it’s evidence, ergo, it’s ‘new evidence'”
judge: “Case dismissed”.

AgentBallSack

Fentex

I generally don’t like the term “Flip-flopping” because it’s a cheap way to insult people who may be honestly convinced to change a position or who’s opinion and decisions are subtle and nuanced.

It’s often a childish taunt used to belittle honest investigation and hound people for doing what we all claim we would – investigate, argue, weigh information and possibly change positions- but few have the courage to do.

Having written that, I think Labour is either flip-flopping or we are seeing fractured opinions put forth by self-interested MP’s (each chasing their own constituency) because it sure as hell seems a complete reversal without reason chasing public approval to announce this change of opinion.

I remember Judith Collins said as much at the time. She said all a lower drinking limit would do, would ruin the entertainment industry and criminalize people just going out for an enjoyable meal – she was right on the button. The fact that a fine was the result is really the answer – REVENUE.

cmm

As I said a few days ago, the media are Greenies. They are white-collar chardonnay socialists like Karl Marx was. They only tolerate the blue-collar Labour types because they feel they can use Labour to achieve their ends.

Now that Labour are falling and Green are rising, they feel they can throw Labour in the gutter and can become the true

Boris Piscina

So I hate to say this BUT it was us who changed the law and lowered the limit into the non-dangerous zone, not Labour.

And IIRC, the figures that Joyce obtained when the matter was last raised prior to the latest change revealed that of roughly 1,000 road deaths attributable to alcohol in the years 2001 – 2010, 10 involved drivers in the 50 – 80 range, or about 1%.

So knowing that 50 – 80 was not the danger zone, but changing the law anyway, presumably in order to fit in with the new PC agenda of our Party’s modern Leadership, and now having been proven wrong by having had it demonstrated that the original intelligence was in fact correct, will Key & Co now move the level back to where it was again and focus on stopping the actually dangerous drunk drivers, or will they stick to their piss-poor decision like shit to a blanket, in yet another misguided attempt to save face – a bit like blundering on with the flag referendum for months after it was blindingly obvious that no-one was interested?

I suspect the latter.

You know when you have the humility to admit you were wrong, and undo the mistake you have made, voters – who are people – are generally very forgiving and prone to rewarding such behaviour.

Just saying.

But then Joyce is such a fucking infallible genius that wild horses are unlikely to be able to drag him back to the truth. I guess he has learned nothing from the Northland debacle; and we have obviously learned nothing about him either.

CharlieBrown

But the hypocrisy from Labour is laughable

The hypocrisy from national party cheerleaders is tragic. I’m not sure if its deliberate or not but labours lurch to the far left has been followed by national who are center left. National opposed nearly all of Helens policies and now they have been expanded on by national or left untouched. WFF, communism by stealth… Now extended by the gutless national socialists.

And the adoption if the drink limit takes the cake in showing how pathetic john key and his rats are.